The positive deviant Hellenists,
Stephen and Philip, they are the beginnings of the sociocultural transition of
Christianity away from a singular Judaic cultural to a pluralistic Gentile
culture. This transition appears to be dominated solely by the Hellenists
Christians and not originating from the Hebrew Christians. Wood and Marshall affirm
this,
To judge from Stephen and
Philip, the Hellenists in the Jerusalem church were more forward-looking than the
Hebrews, in teaching and practice alike. In the persecution which broke out
after Stephen’s death, it was mainly the Hellenists who were scattered,
propagating the gospel wherever they went.[1]
The Hellenists possessed the ability to relate cross-culturally
whereas the Hebrew church was less adaptable and incapable of acting out
cross-culturally. The characteristic of speaking Greek and Aramaic gave the
Hellenists Christians a definitive advantage in cross-cultural engagement. In
addition to speaking multiple languages the Hellenists Christians, usually from
the Diaspora, were accustomed to interacting within a pluralist pagan culture. They
were engaged in the world of their time.
The Hellenist experience does not
appear to view interaction with non-Jews as a potential source of corruption of
a person’s status of purity or holiness. Blomberg affirms that Jesus’
activities were in direct conflict with the conventional Judaic wisdom that the
holy would be contaminated by the impure. As was shown in the previous blogs,
according to Blomberg’s assertions, the prevailing wisdom within Judaic culture
was that the pure could be contaminated, as though by a disease, by the impure.
Jesus directly challenged this notion by his healing of the leper, thereby
cleansing him.[2]
It may be possible that the descriptive Christology in the narrative of the
Gospels, modeled by Jesus’ willingness to touch the leper, proved for the
Hellenist Christians that holiness maybe transferred to another without
corrupting the giver. Wait, this goes completely against everything we have
been taught about holiness in the life of followers of Christ in our modern
times. We should allow this to soak into our souls awhile and rethink what it
means to live out the way of Jesus.
Therefore, the transformation of
the church moves from a completely Judaic culture to a broader ethnic inclusion
of the Hellenists. This broader inclusion establishes a trajectory of
orthopraxy (right practices) and orthopathy (right feelings) that is in
continuity with the incarnation of Jesus, the descriptive Christology of the
Gospels. Though the Twelve retained their prominence in the appointing of the
seven, their practice and strategy began a process of subverting the Judaic
tradition of cultural imperialism through inclusion. The Twelve (the Hebrews),
by transferring leadership to the seven follow a positive deviance approach by initiating
the transfer of the Gospel into a broader cultural context that is no longer
solely of Judaic origins. According to Johnson and Harrington, Luke is
attempting to project the transition of leadership from the Judaic traditions
to the Hellenists Greek orientation, thereby setting the trajectory toward the
establishment of the Gentile church. Johnson and Harrington explain,
Now Luke wants to show how
spiritual authority was bestowed on those who would carry the gospel to the
Diaspora. He needs to show that these Hellenistic missionaries were fully
prophetic figures, like the Twelve; but he also wanted to show that their
authority is derived from that of the Twelve and in continuity with it. He
accomplishes both tasks by having the seven placed over the distribution of
goods. The transfer of spiritual power (through the laying on of hands) is
symbolized by the taking on of ‘table service’ (as it was for Jesus and the
Twelve).[3]
The transfer of the spiritual authority to the Hellenist Christians
validates their ministry amid the broader community and representative ethos in
and around Jerusalem. This is demonstrated through Stephen, the Hellenist, who
becomes a prominent character in the narrative of Acts 6-7. His prominence as a
leader amid the Hellenists is emphasized by Luke. N.T. Wright concludes,
“Stephen, it seems, was at home in the wider world of Greek-speaking Jews. Such
people were by no means necessarily ‘soft’ on the law and the Temple when
compared with their Aramaic-speaking, native-Judaean, Jewish cousins.”[4]
Stephen, along with Phillip, who is mentioned later as another prominent
character portrayed by Luke, are narrated as prophets continuing the ministry
of the Apostles amid the Hellenists and into the Gentile culture, Johnson and
Harrington declare,
The seven were selected
precisely to be ‘in charge of this responsibility’ of the daily distribution
(6:3). But although the entire narrative from this point until the end of
chapter 8 is devoted to two of the seven (Stephen and Philip), neither of them has
the slightest connection to the ‘service of the tables.’ Instead, they are
portrayed as prophets who continue
the work of the twelve: they are filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, they
preach God’s word, and they work signs and wonders among the people. The sole
difference is the sphere of their activity: Stephen disputes the Hellenistic
Jews in the city, Philip begins the preaching to Samara and Judea.[5]
The beginnings of the sociocultural transition of Christianity
from Judaic to Gentile starts with incremental steps that are best defined as
resulting from a positive deviance strategies and practices. We will continue
in tomorrow’s blog examining the continued progression of the transformation of
the early church into a culturally intuitive movement.
[1] Wood and Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 464.
[2] Blomberg,
Contagious holiness, 93.
[3] Johnson and Harrington, The Acts of the Apostles,
Acts 6:1-15, 111.
[4] N. T.
Wright, Acts for Everyone, Part One (Presbyterian Pub Corp, 2008),
104–105.
[5] Johnson and Harrington, The
Acts of the Apostles, Acts 6:1-15, 111.
No comments:
Post a Comment